counters

12 ms·

31.
by counters 3mo ago
That would be a crappy trade; today, the public benefits multiple times over as commercialization of technology drives the innovation economy. Who cares about sharing a measly fraction of direct profits when we all get long-term growth of o
32.
by counters 4mo ago
Pedantry isn't really an admirable trait.
33.
by counters 4mo ago
Deal. Put $10,000 in escrow and point me to your lawyer to work out the details.
34.
by counters 4mo ago
I'm not the big Lebowski but this is the "opinion" of the majority of scientific societies in the US as well as watchdog organizations who have long followed science regulatory and spending action. It's not exactly new.
35.
by counters 4mo ago
Yes. Myself and colleagues used to get outreach fairly regularly to join new faculty at universities trying to establish themselves in China. I'm in industry these days, but some of my colleagues report a significant uptick in these ty
36.
by counters 4mo ago
> This is a blunt instrument, yes. But things were going very poorly overall, and we needed a shake-up. You do understand that what's happening isn't merely a "shake up", right? It's the coordinated dismantling o
37.
The weather and climate science AI revolution isn't revolutionary(arstechnica.com)
7 points by counters 4mo ago|0 comments
38.
by counters 5mo ago
> Especially if they can play on their lib donor heart-strings about how mean the current administration is being to them. Yes, like those famous liberals the Koch family who paid for prime real estate across from Stata. It's just n
39.
by counters 5mo ago
A sizable chunk of the endowment likely has legal restrictions that limit how funds can be spent. E.g., they could be earmarked for undergraduate scholarships or a specific lab at a specific department. The endowment isn't a slush fund
40.
by counters 5mo ago
It would actually be _more_ competitive, because what's driving the reduction in admissions is uncertainty in grant/funding availability. That means fewer available slots overall. Kornbluth's comments don't explicitly st
41.
by counters 7mo ago
> It's "extremely exact" but our models are not good enough. So... inexact? That's not the common way that the phrase "inexact science" is used. All modeling involves approximations at some levels, but you w
42.
by counters 8mo ago
> Weather forecasts have always been an inexact science Weather forecasting is anything but "an inexact science." It's extremely exact up to the limitations and assumptions you impose on your model due to resource constrai
43.
by counters 8mo ago
> No. But I'd suspect a tabula rasa approach to weather–particularly given it hasn't been rolled out globally in one go–incorporates satellite data, local measurements, et cetera. There most likely won't ever be such an ef
44.
by counters 8mo ago
> Do any feel-like estimates take cloud cover into consideration? No, usually not, because they're usually just simple toys combining a heat index and wind chill scale. There _is_ an official metric used for estimating heat stress t
45.
by counters 8mo ago
It would just be regurgitating information from numerical forecast models. If you're in the Northeast and have questions about the significant winter storm that is impending, please check out the National Weather Service's forecas
46.
by counters 8mo ago
> I'm almost shocked we don't have a large weather model instead of a language model. Seems right up the alley. We do have such models. A bunch of them actually: - Google DeepMind's "WeatherNext2" - Microsoft&#x2
47.
by counters 8mo ago
There's probably an initial "nostalgia for DarkSky" market. But beyond that? Nope.
48.
by counters 9mo ago
And therein arises the "moral hazard" issue. There is a legitimate concern that geoengineering could abate some of the concern over climate change and lead to further delays to reduce GHG emissions. And this is a serious problem b
49.
by counters 9mo ago
The important, missing detail that breaks down this analogy is that we don't have a reference for a long period of vulcanism while anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases continue. This is where the "termination shock" is
50.
by counters 9mo ago
Some things to consider. First, what is "too quickly" with reference to CO2 removal from the atmosphere? At present, human civilization emits over 40 gigatons - or 40 trillion kilograms - of CO2 per year. And that increases the at
51.
by counters 9mo ago
He has a knack for being scarily prescient. I didn't expect we would seriously be discussing geoengineering in the 2020's (I gave it until at least the early 2030's, given the technical complexity of building the actual deliv
52.
by counters 9mo ago
> Wait... So, to undo it all we have to do is stop doing it? Doesn't this contradict the statement right before it? It's not quite that simple. The intuition that you're subtly relying on is the idea that the response or e
53.
by counters 9mo ago
Well, the problem is that what we would need to geoengineer the climate would be equivalent to a continuous, yearly sequence of large volcanic eruptions. So the analogy starts to breakdown, because the handful of examples we have of these s
54.
by counters 10mo ago
I didn't ask you to prove it. I asked why it wasn't already happening.
55.
by counters 10mo ago
Legitimate question: why don't you think universities already do this? It's not exactly a novel idea.
56.
by counters 10mo ago
> Finally some science, ok cool. So we're basing this on the baseline of no contrails what-so-ever. We measure the radiative photons? of the light refracting? through it and see it's long-wave radiation channeling properties sc
57.
by counters 10mo ago
Sure, but water vapor doesn't spontaneously transition to a liquid and accrete onto surfaces - there needs to be a super-saturation of water vapor, and given the temperatures of jet exhaust, that's not trivial to achieve. However,
58.
by counters 10mo ago
The general point here is that your individual behavior as a consumer likely doesn't impact this mechanism. An aircraft doesn't skip a flight just because you waited a week to go on vacation. Aviation infrastructure is something o
59.
by counters 10mo ago
> I find it strange. Clouds happen naturally. Contrails are mini clouds (literally a cloud chamber), are we saying that all those “chemtrails” are pollution? Estimating radiative forcing is about measuring relative to a baseline. Here, t
60.
by counters 10mo ago
It's far, far simpler for users to simply use eccodes[1], particularly as implemented in xarray[2]. [1]: https://github.com/ecmwf/eccodes [2]: https://docs.xarray.dev/en/stable/index.html

More ›